Oh, didn't know you were just making up the rules. I would count ALL adverse effects as adverse effects. And by doing so, your statement is untrue.

You count all adverse effects of alcohol but not of drugs....................Yeah right. The only way you can back your argument about drugs is to make special exceptions.

So there right back at you.

No I didn't say that.

I would count all of the adverse effects I listed as they pertain to both drugs and alcohol. I.e. how many emergency room visits are caused by alcohol overdose vs. all other drugs. How many murders, assaults, DVs, etc. are committed by people under the influence of alcohol vs. those under the influence (or involved in the purchase or sale of) all other drugs. How many accidental deaths (including vehicular deaths) are attributable to alcohol vs. all other drugs.

I would not count arrests, incarcerations, etc. solely from (for example) manufacture of meth or growing marijuana. I would not count it because the analogous comparison pertaining to alcohol would be how many times Mr. Coors has been arrested for brewing shitty beer, and of course that hasn't happened because his drug is legal.

So I am willing to compare the two on fair terms. Instead of making global statements (i.e. saying "that's not true, so therefore I win"), why don't you tell me what "special exceptions" you think I'm making so that we can address them directly in an informed debate.

I would count all of the adverse effects I listed as they pertain to both drugs and alcohol. I.e. how many emergency room visits are caused by alcohol overdose vs. all other drugs. How many murders, assaults, DVs, etc. are committed by people under the influence of alcohol vs. those under the influence (or involved in the purchase or sale of) all other drugs. How many accidental deaths (including vehicular deaths) are attributable to alcohol vs. all other drugs.

I would not count arrests, incarcerations, etc. solely from (for example) manufacture of meth or growing marijuana. I would not count it because the analogous comparison pertaining to alcohol would be how many times Mr. Coors has been arrested for brewing shitty beer, and of course that hasn't happened because his drug is legal.

So I am willing to compare the two on fair terms. Instead of making global statements (i.e. saying "that's not true, so therefore I win"), why don't you tell me what "special exceptions" you think I'm making so that we can address them directly in an informed debate.

Well if you count all these it is not even close. The dark side of drugs FAR outweighs the dark side of alcohol. But I am not a champion for alcohol either.

All of what you don't count are the special exceptions. Remember you said adverse effects.

what you choose not to count ARE adverse effects. On fair terms is right now ! not, well if drugs were legal this wouldn't happen or that wouldn't happen. You don't know what would happen.

The "War on Drugs" started around '71 by Nixon is a failure. What we've done is incarcerate people and added to our deficit and made profits for private prisons. We haven't attacked the problem -- abuse.

Private prisons want more inmates, so they lobby legislators for stiffer drug sentencing, or at least to maintain it. We have recidivism, and no resolving of the issue. We have more broken, nonproductive lives in our society. We have the greatest incarceration rate.

For what?

Legalize it, collect taxes, educate the public, have self-help programs, encourage assistance, arrest those who abuse the legal drug as we do DWI, etc.

The market will get rid of illegal suppliers to an extent after legalization.

Where? Who? You guys that want I legalize drugs are way ahead of your time for sure... I mean other countries have decriminalized some of the drugs, with one country basically decriminalizing all drugs.. But full out legalization... Again, you pro drug guys are ahead of your times!! Congrats, I just hope it doesn't happen in your grand kids time where they go to cvs and get hooked on heroin under your watch, I think you would be singing a different tune for sure!

All of what you don't count are the special exceptions. Remember you said adverse effects.

what you choose not to count ARE adverse effects. On fair terms is right now ! not, well if drugs were legal this wouldn't happen or that wouldn't happen. You don't know what would happen.

Your argument is based on pure conjecture.

It's not conjecture.

Fact: if manufacturing and selling cocaine were legal, then there would be no arrests and incarcerations for manufacturing and selling cocaine.

That's what I said should not factor into the equation. That's what I said I wouldn't count.

BTW, this is an argument about whether drugs should be legal. If we counted "crime statistics" related to manufacture, sale, possession, and use of currently illegal drugs as a "factor" in favor of the status quo, then the argument would be completely circular. "Drugs cause crime. Just look at how many people are arrested for using, selling, and manufacturing drugs. Clearly drugs are bad because they cause crime. Therefore, they should be illegal."

Fact: if manufacturing and selling cocaine were legal, then there would be no arrests and incarcerations for manufacturing and selling cocaine.

That's what I said should not factor into the equation. That's what I said I wouldn't count.

BTW, this is an argument about whether drugs should be legal. If we counted "crime statistics" related to manufacture, sale, possession, and use of currently illegal drugs as a "factor" in favor of the status quo, then the argument would be completely circular. "Drugs cause crime. Just look at how many people are arrested for using, selling, and manufacturing drugs. Clearly drugs are bad because they cause crime. Therefore, they should be illegal."

Uh, you just changed your argument. Before it was if drugs were legal, now it is if the manufacturing and selling were legal. Smart on your part because you realize that alcohol is legal, but there are still arrests for it's ILLEGAL manufacture and distribution. I don't think if drugs are legalized individuals will be allowed to manufacture and distribute drugs, BUT THEY WILL

But your whole point is moot with me because using alcohol to justify legalizing drugs is ridiculous

Uh, you just changed your argument. Before it was if drugs were legal, now it is if the manufacturing and selling were legal. Smart on your part because you realize that alcohol is legal, but there are still arrests for it's ILLEGAL manufacture and distribution. I don't think if drugs are legalized individuals will be allowed to manufacture and distribute drugs, BUT THEY WILL
But your whole point is moot with me because using alcohol to justify legalizing drugs is ridiculous

No he didn't. All he did was simplify one of his examples to allow you to understand it better. You can't compare things equally that aren't equal. Very simple concept.

Uh, you just changed your argument. Before it was if drugs were legal, now it is if the manufacturing and selling were legal. Smart on your part because you realize that alcohol is legal, but there are still arrests for it's ILLEGAL manufacture and distribution. I don't think if drugs are legalized individuals will be allowed to manufacture and distribute drugs, BUT THEY WILL

But your whole point is moot with me because using alcohol to justify legalizing drugs is ridiculous

What is the major difference between drug use and alcohol use in this country?

We aren't "slow to change" at all. We just don't happen to want to "change" into what someobody else from another part of the country thinks we should change into. We don't see the same utopia at the end of that road.

"Bible Belt" and religion have next to nothing to do with why most people don't smoke pot. Although a majority respect religion, a realtively small percentage try to follow it and live by it.

They don't smoke pot in the open, and hide it very well, because it's not socially acceptable. They will be shunned by respectable friends (religious or not) if not jailed by the law.

They will lose their jobs from a random drug test and almost all would agree that there should be no tolerance for any impairment on the job for safety reasons.

They will give you the shirt off of their back, their last dollar, or jump in the middle of the greasy engine of your car that won't start (while wearing their best suit) to help you out.

The biggest backslide from religious teachings is that when somebody looks down their nose at them they will definitely punch that nose without a second thought.

As a Southerner for 50 years, yep ... slow to change or to think of social issues other than in conventional terms, unless of course, there is profit to be made...

We aren't "slow to change" at all. We just don't happen to want to "change" into what someobody else from another part of the country thinks we should change into. We don't see the same utopia at the end of that road.

"Bible Belt" and religion have next to nothing to do with why most people don't smoke pot. Although a majority respect religion, a realtively small percentage try to follow it and live by it.

They don't smoke pot in the open, and hide it very well, because it's not socially acceptable. They will be shunned by respectable friends (religious or not) if not jailed by the law.

They will lose their jobs from a random drug test and almost all would agree that there should be no tolerance for any impairment on the job for safety reasons.

They will give you the shirt off of their back, their last dollar, or jump in the middle of the greasy engine of your car that won't start (while wearing their best suit) to help you out.

The biggest backslide from religious teachings is that when somebody looks down their nose at them they will definitely punch that nose without a second thought.

I live in the South, and have for longer than most here have lived, so I am familiar with its people. Heck, the South is still fighting the Civil War in some ways - 150 years later.

The South is sloooooowww to accept new ideas. The populace in general does not think outside the box. They are set in their ways. It takes a lot to move them.

Of course, many admit that it's dumb to lock up people for marijuana use, so why not start with decriminalizing marijuana a bit more?

This "war" on drugs costs too much money, ruins too many lives, and is a complete failure according to most experts.

So why not try something new? If not legal, decriminalize it to certain limits as in the Portugese example. If limited possession is allowed, then the free market takes over. You get more education, more rehab, better product, more knowledge about its dangers, and we can close down private jails.

Heck, we can bring in more revenue and reduce costs -- reduce deficits. And isn't that what all of us want? And we can do it without endangering the public. It's all a balance. But heck, the South will say no ... because they are spooked by anything new.

I live in the South, and have for longer than most here have lived, so I am familiar with its people. Heck, the South is still fighting the Civil War in some ways - 150 years later.

The South is sloooooowww to accept new ideas. The populace in general does not think outside the box. They are set in their ways. It takes a lot to move them.

Of course, many admit that it's dumb to lock up people for marijuana use, so why not start with decriminalizing marijuana a bit more?

This "war" on drugs costs too much money, ruins too many lives, and is a complete failure according to most experts.

So why not try something new? If not legal, decriminalize it to certain limits as in the Portugese example. If limited possession is allowed, then the free market takes over. You get more education, more rehab, better product, more knowledge about its dangers, and we can close down private jails.

Heck, we can bring in more revenue and reduce costs -- reduce deficits. And isn't that what all of us want? And we can do it without endangering the public. It's all a balance. But heck, the South will say no ... because they are spooked by anything new.

I live in the South, and have for longer than most here have lived, so I am familiar with its people. Heck, the South is still fighting the Civil War in some ways - 150 years later.

The South is sloooooowww to accept new ideas. The populace in general does not think outside the box. They are set in their ways. It takes a lot to move them.

Of course, many admit that it's dumb to lock up people for marijuana use, so why not start with decriminalizing marijuana a bit more?

This "war" on drugs costs too much money, ruins too many lives, and is a complete failure according to most experts.

So why not try something new? If not legal, decriminalize it to certain limits as in the Portugese example. If limited possession is allowed, then the free market takes over. You get more education, more rehab, better product, more knowledge about its dangers, and we can close down private jails.

Heck, we can bring in more revenue and reduce costs -- reduce deficits. And isn't that what all of us want? And we can do it without endangering the public. It's all a balance. But heck, the South will say no ... because they are spooked by anything new.

B.S.

The top 5 states in the US for incarceration rates are Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama and Texas. A large percentage of those incarcerations are drug related. Alabama in particular has a prison population of 192% of capacity. That's insanely costly.

The top 5 states in the US for incarceration rates are Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama and Texas. A large percentage of those incarcerations are drug related. Alabama in particular has a prison population of 192% of capacity. That's insanely costly.

Which is why I said in an earlier comment that I am for decriminalization of maijuana in small amounts to free up at least some of my tax money for something worthwhile.

I'm halfway counting on that not really increasing usage based on the other reasons I listed.